Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

theodp writes "Newly-disclosed USPTO documents show that Microsoft is seeking patent protection for a 'Magic Wand,' a device with various gizmos and sensors that can manipulate and interact with its environment, including video and holographic images, while using biometrics to connect with the user. 'Even the most pragmatic individual,' explains Microsoft, 'would have trouble arguing against the merits or utility of, say, a magic wand that actually worked to control or communicate with objects or components in an associated nearby environment.' No doubt. The inventors include CXO/CTO J Allard, and Sr. Researcher Andy Wilson."

Well, it's more than a wii-mote. The question is how much more than the sum of the additions? I think that's a critical question.

I'm wary of any kind of kitchen-sink approach to inventing. An invention should somehow be more than the sum of its parts, otherwise where's the originality? If you said, take a wii-mote and add this one specific element and now something qualitatively new becomes possible, then you'd have a good argument that you invented something. If you say, take a wii-mote and add everyt

In 1998 I was given a demonstration of a virtual reality system at Cornell University, consisting of 3D glasses with head tracking support, two walls lit by projectors using polarized light, and what might be loosely described as a "magic wand" for interacting with the environment. I recall manipulating 3D windows by pointing with this wand.

Because the Hitachi Magic Wand is a "personal massage device" [wink wink, nudge nudge], and this is a video game controller. If Microsoft was trying to get a trademark on "magic wand", GP might have a point. As is, he has none.

Having something that operates a bit like a wii controller combined with a universal remote.

Imagine pointing the wand at your receiver and giving an upward flitting motion and the receiver bumps up the volume. or flick to the right and it changes stations or goes to the next track. Twirl it in a circle clockwise to turn on or counterclockwise to turn off etc.

And would only react to the device you point at. (might have to establish separate gestures for nearby components etc)

I could see a lot of wrist flicking being a serious problem for older people or other people with arthritis. I'm not sure what Microsoft is trying to do with this, but a hunch tells me it isn't going to work out like they hope it will.

Imagine pointing the wand at your receiver and giving an upward flitting motion and the receiver bumps up the volume. or flick to the right and it changes stations or goes to the next track. Twirl it in a circle clockwise to turn on or counterclockwise to turn off etc.

. . . I'm imagining hurling the thing at my television, which is showing politicians making lame excuses about why they used taxpayer money to clean the moats of their private residences (and other wacky stuff). And that the politician can actually feel the pain when the wand hits the screen.

Having something that operates a bit like a wii controller combined with a universal remote.

Imagine pointing the wand at your receiver and giving an upward flitting motion and the receiver bumps up the volume. or flick to the right and it changes stations or goes to the next track. Twirl it in a circle clockwise to turn on or counterclockwise to turn off etc.

And would only react to the device you point at. (might have to establish separate gestures for nearby components etc)

I'd buy that.

Sounds nifty... But I fail to see how it would be an improvement over the universal remote that I have.

I don't see how physical gestures would be any easier or more intuitive than just hitting a button labeled "on" or "volume." And I'm really not sure how it would tell whether I want to turn on the TV, the VCR, the DVD player, or the cable box... They're all piled within about a foot of eachother. Unless you had a different gesture for each device... Or a selector switch/button to tell the wand what to

And would only react to the device you point at. (might have to establish separate gestures for nearby components etc)

I would have thought the initial pointing at the device you want to control would be enough to indicate which device is being controlled, then you can just use the same motions to mean different things to different device.

Somewhat off-topic, but the wording in patent applications always amuses me. For instance, the abstract says:

The architecture can utilize one or more sensor from a collection of sensors to determine an orientation or gesture in connection with the wand, and can further issue an instruction to update a state of an environmental component based upon the orientation.

They say "one or more sensor from a collection of sensors", which is redundant. They could just say "sensors". And why say "can further issue an instruction to update a state of an environmental component" when it is simpler to just say "can update another component"?

The architecture can utilize sensors to determine orientation or gesture of the wand, and can update another component based upon the orientation.

I understand the need for precision. And I guess if they don't claim "one or more sensors" then someone can try to circumvent the patent by doing the same thing with only one single sensor (or whatever). But it still sounds ridiculous, and is no excuse for making confusing sentences. So many sentences are needlessly complicated or outright superfluous. Is there really no better way to word patents?

Can anyone comment? Is that kind of wording truly necessary for the patent to be robust, or is the wording intentionally obtuse and confusing, so that they can later use the ambiguity to argue for broader applicability?

Sure, but what does the "from a collection of sensors" add to the meaning? And why can't they just write "sensor(s)" if they absolutely need the "one or more" part?

And moreover my question is whether or not they really do need the precision of "one or more" (especially in the abstract). The same logic applies to all the other potentially superfluous words. Yes there is a different between "issue an instruction to update" and simply "update", but is that differentiation actually crucially necessary from a le

I was a co-inventor on a recent patent application and I can attest that pretty much all patents are written this way to make them as precise and robust as possible. Sometimes these phrases like "a collection of sensors" might refer specifically to a prior description or figure. Anyway, this is totally typical, and no the lawyers are not paid by word.

Can anyone comment? Is that kind of wording truly necessary for the patent to be robust, or is the wording intentionally obtuse and confusing, so that they can later use the ambiguity to argue for broader applicability?

Uh, yes? Both necessary to robust and to later use ambiguity. For example:

The architecture can utilize one or more sensor from a collection of sensors

can apply to a single sensor. However:

They could just say "sensors".

could be read during litigation as applying only to two or more sensors, so a device that only effects a change via one sensor wouldn't infringe.

But it still sounds ridiculous, and is no excuse for making confusing sentences. So many sentences are needlessly complicated or outright superfluous. Is there really no better way to word patents?

Agreed, but unfortunately, no... Consider how confusing contracts tend to be - same exact reason. It's not a case of "why say in two words what you can say in twenty", it's more that those twenty words define a much more exact and specific definition than

and set of blingy neck chains, a runes book, and do jigs and circus moves. That'll impress me. Games makers already are on this, ms, so back off. Your acts further justify massive patent reform's need, clowns.

From our garden simulator help file:http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/help100/00000136.htm [kurtz-fernhout.com] "The magic wand is used to grow plants, to pull all plants in a soil patch, to duplicate plants and soil patches, to rename plants, to reseed plants, and to place plants in stasis (or remove them from stasis). The tool actions associated with any tool can be changed in the tool editor."

You could also map action from other tools, like the "growcorder" onto the magic wand to use it for that functionality:

It's already in the shape of a wand. And it can do everything described with simple software updates. Do you get a patent just for using someone else's design now? And that's not considering how innovative the Wii controller is itself.

A description in a work of fiction is enough to discount the application as not being an original and/or non-obvious invention right?
The first thing that comes to my mind when I read the summary is the wands Adele Mundy of Chatsworth uses constantly to interact with her computer systems.....

Their MagiQuest game uses a motion-sensitive "magic wand" with an IR transmitter to interact with objects in real space. The game is geared for kids, but it's rather fun to walk through the hotel and trigger animated objects by flicking the wand at them.

There was some hullabaloo back when Nintendo first announced the Wii's capabilities because Microsoft had been working on a "magic wand" since somewhere around 1997, I believe. I'm totally unable to find any references, but there WAS a project page hosted by Microsoft which featured (besides an ugly color scheme) photos and text talking about the project/experiment.

If it's made by Microsoft, it will probably just cause all my appliances to magically BSOD. I can't wait to wave my wand at my fridge and have it quit cooling, or begin cooling intermittently, or stop cooling and light up with a red sign saying "THIS COPY OF YOUR REFRIGERATOR DOES NOT PASS WAND GENUINE ADVANTAGE"

Seriously, besides an obvious rip off of the wii-mote, I have NO faith in MS ability to put out a decent product. I can't think of ONE MS product I've liked, ever!